ChiangMaiFun

I have some 1oz bullion coins I might be willing to part with. Canadian Silver Maples. Send me a PM.

Hi - sorry I'm specifically after bars and want to invest a large amount - assayed and stamped bars - thanks anyway

two wrongs don't make a right

True, tell k. Thaksin

if I knew the gentleman I would - but it doesn't mean to say because of past wrongdoing we should continue :jap:

Any ideas? Gold is everywhere... but Silver? any place selling bars? assayed?

Surely it can't continue... can it...?

I'd think a small recovery to 53/54 should be on the cards - sterling has suffered beyond what would be expected - not so sure about the dollar though

rubbish - the EC would never have taken the case forward had it not believed in a successful outcome - take your blinkers off! and so to get out of it? a technicality! are you honestly saying you cannot see the obvious? those 'in power' are 'in power' get used to it

Actually, they didn't take the cases forward...until someone threatened to publish their home addresses for all red fans to visit...all in a good sense of right and wrong.

maybe because there WAS a case to answer! but we will never know will we? because it 'probably' has been buried and they hope no one will notice - its all topsy turvy - like the video thing - who cares about if bad was done - we care about the 'technicality' of someone breaking the law by filming! its all manipulated and buried - the powerful looking after the powerful

Maybe there was? Probably buried? Government conspiracy?

You mean to say nothing new under the sun. If one did it, why not others also? Birds of the same feather? People can't be fooled all the time, someone posted here. Just suggesting seems enough.

So read this:

http://www.theage.co...l?from=storylhs

and

http://www.smh.com.a...l?from=storylhs

Nothing like that has been seen in the two Dem's cases. Compared with some they have much to learn

two wrongs don't make a right

rubbish - the EC would never have taken the case forward had it not believed in a successful outcome - take your blinkers off! and so to get out of it? a technicality! are you honestly saying you cannot see the obvious? those 'in power' are 'in power' get used to it

Actually, they didn't take the cases forward...until someone threatened to publish their home addresses for all red fans to visit...all in a good sense of right and wrong.

maybe because there WAS a case to answer! but we will never know will we? because it 'probably' has been buried and they hope no one will notice - its all topsy turvy - like the video thing - who cares about if bad was done - we care about the 'technicality' of someone breaking the law by filming! its all manipulated and buried - the powerful looking after the powerful

Here we go again - no one cares about the rights or wrongs - just the 'technicality' - and who, exactly, 'forgot'? sounds like a conspiracy theorists dream - and the Dems walk away again because of 'something'. Don't all these people realise that you can fools some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time? what a farce

Read some of the previous posts on how the EC declared a few times 'we have no case' and were pressured, even threatened to start a case.

Some people don't read or listen and want to be fooled it seems

rubbish - the EC would never have taken the case forward had it not believed in a successful outcome - take your blinkers off! and so to get out of it? a technicality! are you honestly saying you cannot see the obvious? those 'in power' are 'in power' get used to it

Here we go again - no one cares about the rights or wrongs - just the 'technicality' - and who, exactly, 'forgot'? sounds like a conspiracy theorists dream - and the Dems walk away again because of 'something'. Don't all these people realise that you can fools some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time? what a farce

very, very sad... as someone once said 'a final solution to a temporary problem' RIP

Let's stop all this 'noise' and get international obervers in and hold an election - whoever wins - wins

But oh no the government won't do that because it will expose and topple their shaky edifice - not only exposing red malpractice but the Army's control etc.

Whoever is acknowledged as winner wins. Subtle difference, but those observers would agree with it

International monitors could errrr 'monitor' the fairness of the election - vote buying, rigging etc. then people would have more confidence in the outcome - I believe the Dems would not win as they are seen as the party of the rich elite (which they are).

Hmmm now you seem to be holding the fact that Abhisit is well educated against the government?

I agree with you that the IDEA of observers is a good idea. The problem is, would these observers be fluent in the Thai spoken in rural villages and understand the kanman system and how vote buying and coercion occurs in Thailand? Would they be participating in the entire run-up to the elections to see that all political parties could campaign in all areas of Thailand? Would they be able to catch outright lies being told and say anything about it?

If so then I am ALL for it! If not, then what is the use?

This is absurd - obervers work in Africa, Arabia and even Afghanistan so don't use language as an excuse for why you don't think monitors would work. Abhisit would actually EARN some kudos by bringing in impartial monitors but he won't do it - why? why? why? because it would expose, not only red infringments, but also his rich pals in power and his Army bosses.

So you haven't noticed that this guy is one of the posters who posts in an expedient rather than honest way?

Not sure who you are actually referring to but everyone, even people who have opposing views are entitled to have their say and if that is the real view then it is honest whatever anyone thinks.

Unfortunately if your a supporter of the democrats then your also by definition accepting for whatever personal reason you may have of corruption and basically saying that the end justifies the means, by the way, my wifes just a little bit pregnant

Huh? he was referring to the poster that I replied to? read the thread?

Agreed, but the not so subtle difference is that one assumes having been educated in one of the worlds top universitys then would know the difference between collusion and being a comparatively uneducated rural farmer used by corrupt politicians as cannon fodder for the benefit of getting their snouts in the trough as well.

I would like to see fair elections with no vote buying, bring in observers from around the world, see this government root out corruption and go from there but of course no corruption has or will be rooted out because unlike western values on the whole, here it is endemic and a way of life that I do not believe anyone will find a cure for in my lifetime.

Hmmm now you seem to be holding the fact that Abhisit is well educated against the government?

I agree with you that the IDEA of observers is a good idea. The problem is, would these observers be fluent in the Thai spoken in rural villages and understand the kanman system and how vote buying and coercion occurs in Thailand? Would they be participating in the entire run-up to the elections to see that all political parties could campaign in all areas of Thailand? Would they be able to catch outright lies being told and say anything about it?

If so then I am ALL for it! If not, then what is the use?

This is absurd - obervers work in Africa, Arabia and even Afghanistan so don't use language as an excuse for why you don't think monitors would work. Abhisit would actually EARN some kudos by bringing in impartial monitors but he won't do it - why? why? why? because it would expose, not only red infringments, but also his rich pals in power and his Army bosses.

So you haven't noticed that this guy is one of the posters who posts in an expedient rather than honest way?

Yes I noticed a long, long time ago

Let's stop all this 'noise' and get international obervers in and hold an election - whoever wins - wins

But oh no the government won't do that because it will expose and topple their shaky edifice - not only exposing red malpractice but the Army's control etc.

Agreed, but the not so subtle difference is that one assumes having been educated in one of the worlds top universitys then would know the difference between collusion and being a comparatively uneducated rural farmer used by corrupt politicians as cannon fodder for the benefit of getting their snouts in the trough as well.

I would like to see fair elections with no vote buying, bring in observers from around the world, see this government root out corruption and go from there but of course no corruption has or will be rooted out because unlike western values on the whole, here it is endemic and a way of life that I do not believe anyone will find a cure for in my lifetime.

Hmmm now you seem to be holding the fact that Abhisit is well educated against the government?

I agree with you that the IDEA of observers is a good idea. The problem is, would these observers be fluent in the Thai spoken in rural villages and understand the kanman system and how vote buying and coercion occurs in Thailand? Would they be participating in the entire run-up to the elections to see that all political parties could campaign in all areas of Thailand? Would they be able to catch outright lies being told and say anything about it?

If so then I am ALL for it! If not, then what is the use?

This is absurd - obervers work in Africa, Arabia and even Afghanistan so don't use language as an excuse for why you don't think monitors would work. Abhisit would actually EARN some kudos by bringing in impartial monitors but he won't do it - why? why? why? because it would expose, not only red infringments, but also his rich pals in power and his Army bosses.

The insult has been removed - I assume by the Mods:

This post has been edited by metisdead: 44 minutes ago

Reason for edit: Insult removed.

Correct -- my smiley was for you trying to get someone in trouble. Something you accuse ME of doing There isn't an emoticon for irony

Difference - this guy publically insulted me and there's no need for it

You, on the other hand, try and get people banned for having the audacity to critisise the law - which in your own country you are free to do of course with impunity!

thats like saying not all farmers are farmers, not all bar girls are bar girls.

Of course they're pro Thaksin and thats what they stand for and who they're sponsered by.

Using Thai insults against fellow posters is against TV Rules - rude and insulting - attack my arguement but not me

The insult has been removed - I assume by the Mods:

This post has been edited by metisdead: 44 minutes ago

Reason for edit: Insult removed.

Probably could make a valid argument for that (fair is fair, after all), but what is your point?

First you have to define the "Amataya". Is Thaksin an "Amataya?" I would say he is. So all groups support their own "Amataya". So let's throw that out. It's a distinction without a difference. Same with the Bangkok Business Elite. This is an ill defined "snarl" term defined to do nothing more than evoke emotion. Please define Bangkok Business Elite using specific organizations and we'll talk further. There is a large list of elite Bangkok businessmen who are pro Thaksin.

About the only real comment you can make is that support for the Dems means support for the military and the coup that ousted Thaksin. And yes, I think it is fair to say most people who support the Democrats would sign their name to supporting the military to this point. The military, watermelon soldiers excluded, have actually done a pretty good job of keeping the country together during exceedingly difficult times.

I can be proud to say I tentatively support the military. If they get out of line, I will withdraw my support, and I believe so will Abhisit.

Can you say that you are proud to support a convicted fugitive billionaire?

'i believe so will Abhisit' you're joking right? they run the country - wake up!

Is it really necessary to put "PRO-THAKSIN GROUPS" in the sub-title and then in red on the OP? It's a bit obvious, isn't it?

Not all reds are pro-Thaksin

thats like saying not all farmers are farmers, not all bar girls are bar girls.

Of course they're pro Thaksin and thats what they stand for and who they're sponsered by.

Using Thai insults against fellow posters is against TV Rules - rude and insulting - attack my arguement but not me

Well the expected Propaganda Fest is in full gear.

Seems if they can't win via dirty tricks go back to

ignoring facts and trying to make image more important

than reality.

You may support the reds for other reasons

and you may say you don't want Thaksin back,

but the reality is supporting PTP and Red Shirts

taking control defacto MEANS supporting Thaksin's return.

The positions are not mutually exclusive not matter what

wishful thinking of separation is imagined.

So in effect what your saying is that anyone that supports the cause and injustices being done to the majority of the people that support the reds are pro Thaksin, what a crock of shit.

They won't understand or accept the difference - everyone who is sypathetic to the poor and downtrodden and undertstands the frustrations of the reds is a Thaksin supporter (not true), pro-violence (not true) and stupid (not true).

Wrong again ---

Many of us that are Pro-government and Anti-Thaksin also "feel the pain" of the rural poor in Thailand. That being said, since the PTP has one stated goal --- and the UDD has one stated goal --- and the red shirt movement backs up the PTP/UDD ---- then currently to be a "red" and claim that Thaksin is not at the center of it all is senseless.

The day that the reds drop Thaksin they will certainly get a little more support from many people. The day the reds stop violence and threats of violence, they will get even more.

I, too, wish they would drop the 'Thaksin Back' stance but I see the whole thing in a much larger context than thee

Well the expected Propaganda Fest is in full gear.

Seems if they can't win via dirty tricks go back to

ignoring facts and trying to make image more important

than reality.

You may support the reds for other reasons

and you may say you don't want Thaksin back,

but the reality is supporting PTP and Red Shirts

taking control defacto MEANS supporting Thaksin's return.

The positions are not mutually exclusive not matter what

wishful thinking of separation is imagined.

So in effect what your saying is that anyone that supports the cause and injustices being done to the majority of the people that support the reds are pro Thaksin, what a crock of shit.

They won't understand or accept the difference - everyone who is sypathetic to the poor and downtrodden and undertstands the frustrations of the reds is a Thaksin supporter (not true), pro-violence (not true) and stupid (not true).

You continually mis-quote me and continue to show that you are very arrogant indeed - many people on here have caught onto you as a poster said yesterday.

No "misquoting" done here ... and the poster yesterday is the guy that does the most "name-calling" on the board. It was good of you not to address any of the content in the post that you quoted with this answer though!

So, directly ....

1) Have you not in the past associated the Red shirts with the Labor Union movements in Europe and stated that violence was part of what it took for the labor union movement to gain ground? (I agree that you openly say that you do not condone violence now, but that you have associated the violence of the labor union movements as necessary and the reds with the labor union movement, which in my mind negates your claims to not agreeing with violence.) Don't you find it strange that the Thai labor unions took stands against the redshirts and Thaksin?

2) Have you not changed tactics from saying that there has been a paradigm shift in Thailand, to now saying a social/cultural shift that will take 3-4 decades? (What country in the world has NOT had a cultural shift in 30-40 years/.)

3) Am I arrogant? Sure!

4) Is the red movement totally tied up with the "bring back Thaksin" movement? Absolutely

5) Are the people quoted in the OP pro-Thaksin? Absolutely

6) Do you balk against the stereotype of saying that Reds are pro-Thaksin while continuing to label anti-Thaksin people as "yellow fellows"? Absolutely (pot:kettle:black)

Very simply --- the fight is between 2 (possibly 3) strong power blocs in Thailand. The government, strangely, isn't one of those blocs.

edit to add: Giles U. is not widely accepted by the reds --- even though he has appeared on red stages. The fact that Giles U. has run away from Thailand to escape prosecution is quite telling. That he is at the extreme lunatic fringe and being quoted here as proof that the red movement is less pro-Thaksin is also telling. That Giles stands for something that only the smallest minority in Thailand would approve of, but is being used in this argument is again ... telling. That apparently his own co-workers at Chula turned him in for his crimes ... LOL

I loosely linked labour movements as an example of change in societies not to link any approval of violence - you are very selective in your hatchet job on my posts. I never said there HAD been a cultural shift but there was one HAPPENING now (I have always said 'decades') - please go read up on the subject as your understanding is woeful at best.

I will, however, point out one aspect of your post and that is if people do support the red shirts, then they do support Thaksin.

That's just not true. If you look at someone like Giles Ungpakorn, you'll see that he's very sympathetic to the reds but was a critic of Thaksin.He's very clear about this and, in fact, it's hardly surprising that a Trotskyite would be critical of a capitalist bastard like Thaksin, whilst being sympathetic to a movement predominantly of the urban and rural poor. The reds are clearly a broad church - maybe too broad - and whilst the inane Thaksin-red-Thaksin-red merry-go-round may read nicely in rags like the Nation, it's balls.

eexactly! what a good post - rational, sane and spot on - but many on here won't 'get it'

Like my old CEO said 'they don't know what they don't know'

It is an old trick used by the established yellows on here - if you do not agree with the current government you are red - if you are red you support Thaksin - if you support Thaksin you are stupid and a moron. They have no ability to rationally argue the case and accept social change is upon us - I have always posted I don't want to see Thaksin back and I do not support violence but I am regulalry accused by the 'high and mighty' on here of being a red AND a Thaksin supporter.

I don't hurl insults like "moron", as that's more of jayboy's territory.

I will, however, point out one aspect of your post and that is if people do support the red shirts, then they do support Thaksin.

They and the Pheu Thai Party are an inseparable trio.

I can appreciate that people may not prefer the current government and profess to dislike Thaksin, but when it seems they go to great lengths to highlight only the positives and downplay all the negatives of his persona and record, it makes it difficult to accept their professed disconnect.

A similar situation exists with those that support the Reds, when they say they aren't about Thaksin or that they aren't violent or that their leaders are something more than Thaksin servants. Even the claims that they exist to support the downtrodden and neglected ring hollow when the realities of their leadership is examined.

Until such time as the rank and file Reds disown and disavow and disassociate from the Reds like Arisaman, Jakrapob, Issan Rambo, Sae Daeng, and Kwanchai who all favor violent upheavels as the means to achieve their goals, the entire "movement" is tainted. That these same rank and file languish in jails without legal and financial support from the leadership after doing their bidding speaks the loudest over what the leadership is concerned with.

Until such time as the somewhat more moderate reds like Sombat become the overwhelming driving force behind the "movement", it is justifiably scorned. An excellent opportunity to begin to bring the level of credibility of the Reds came yesterday when Jatuporn announced a new leadership for the Reds. Did he announce a moderate like Sombat was taking the helm? No. He announced more of the same in the form of Weng's wife.

The poor and disenfranchised have legitimate concerns. They just need to rally around a group or movement other than the Reds, because without wholesale change, that group is irrevocably linked to violence and mayhem. A legitimate grass-root organization would find support on all sides here. It's just that the Reds are incapable of fulfilling that role.

.

I don't disasgree with much of what you have posted - my viewpoint has always been from the cultural shift angle - and as such I concentrate less on the personalities and more on the broad strokes being played on a vast canvas. I disown, entirely, violence on either side and have never advocated it.

It is an old trick used by the established yellows on here - if you do not agree with the current government you are red - if you are red you support Thaksin - if you support Thaksin you are stupid and a moron. They have no ability to rationally argue the case and accept social change is upon us - I have always posted I don't want to see Thaksin back and I do not support violence but I am regulalry accused by the 'high and mighty' on here of being a red AND a Thaksin supporter.

In the same sentence that you're complaining about being called a red and Thaksin supporter, you're calling others yellow because they agree with the government.

no i said 'established yellows on here' when did I say government supporters? I'm sure there are some Abhisit supporters who do not like PAD - I am bitching about the active yellow fellows who trash anyone who disagree and always label them 'red' or 'Thaksinites'. You can go back over all my posts where I consistently say 'I don't want Thaksin back' and 'I am against violence of ANY colour' but I still get slammed by those who are intellectually challenged.

Haven't you consistently said that you agree with the red cause? Haven't you stated in the past that you see violence as necessary (while also stating that you are against violence?) Please define "yellow fellows", Does that mean people that think this government is not only legal (it is) but that it has a duty to the voters that put parliament into place to continue working for the future of Thailand? The PAD (the Yellows) are a spent force --- politically marginalized unless Thaksin threatens to come back in the future. At this point I would say there are very few "yellows" on the board but that there are MANY here that think this government is the very best option for Thailand's future.

You continually mis-quote me and continue to show that you are very arrogant indeed - many people on here have caught onto you as a poster said yesterday.